Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 29

Thread: Delegate Jackson Miller: HB681 - Arrest at will

  1. #1
    Regular Member Repeater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,519

    Post imported post

    Jackson Miller, a cop and a Delegate, is trying again to allow LEOs to arrest anyone for any Class 1 or Class 2 misdemeanor.

    More bad LEO encounters await!

    HB681

    HB 681 Discretion of law-enforcement officer to arrest or issue summons for a jailable offense.

    Patron: Jackson H. Miller

    Summary as introduced:

    Discretion of law-enforcement officer to arrest or issue summons for a jailable offense. Gives a law-enforcement officer discretion to arrest or to issue a summons to a person in his custody for having committed a Class 1 or 2 misdemeanor.

    Currently, the officer must issue a summons unless the person refuses to cease his criminal activity, is a danger to himself or others, or indicates he will disregard a summons.

  2. #2
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Post imported post

    Repeater wrote:
    Jackson Miller, a cop and a Delegate, is trying again to allow LEOs to arrest anyone for any Class 1 or Class 2 misdemeanor.

    More bad LEO encounters await!

    HB681

    HB 681 Discretion of law-enforcement officer to arrest or issue summons for a jailable offense.

    Patron: Jackson H. Miller

    Summary as introduced:

    Discretion of law-enforcement officer to arrest or issue summons for a jailable offense. Gives a law-enforcement officer discretion to arrest or to issue a summons to a person in his custody for having committed a Class 1 or 2 misdemeanor.

    Currently, the officer must issue a summons unless the person refuses to cease his criminal activity, is a danger to himself or others, or indicates he will disregard a summons.
    This one is difficult to follow. The full text simply toggles one instance of the two words "may" and "shall".

    TFred


  3. #3
    Regular Member Repeater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,519

    Post imported post

    TFred wrote:
    Repeater wrote:
    Jackson Miller, a cop and a Delegate, is trying again to allow LEOs to arrest anyone for any Class 1 or Class 2 misdemeanor.

    More bad LEO encounters await!

    HB681

    HB 681 Discretion of law-enforcement officer to arrest or issue summons for a jailable offense.

    Patron: Jackson H. Miller

    Summary as introduced:

    Discretion of law-enforcement officer to arrest or issue summons for a jailable offense. Gives a law-enforcement officer discretion to arrest or to issue a summons to a person in his custody for having committed a Class 1 or 2 misdemeanor.

    Currently, the officer must issue a summons unless the person refuses to cease his criminal activity, is a danger to himself or others, or indicates he will disregard a summons.
    This one is difficult to follow. The full text simply toggles one instance of the two words "may" and "shall".

    TFred
    A repeat of:

    Anti-liberty bills introduced by Delegate Jackson Miller!!

  4. #4
    Regular Member simmonsjoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Mattaponi, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    1,664

    Post imported post

    seems like a backwards route to all-crimes-are-felonies thought. Keep it up and eventually you can be shot for double parking. This is an attempt to extend the persuasive powers of authority some officer's think they actually possess. You have no power but what the people give you. Attempting to have such dominion removes the power from the people and grants it to a privileged class.
    illegal ≠ immoral legal ≠ moral
    [SIZE=1]"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. "Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent." - Thomas Jefferson
    G19 Gen 4; Bersa Thunder 380; Sig Sauer P238; Kel-Tec su-16c

  5. #5
    Regular Member Repeater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,519

    Post imported post

    simmonsjoe wrote:
    seems like a backwards route to all-crimes-are-felonies thought. Keep it up and eventually you can be shot for double parking. This is an attempt to extend the persuasive powers of authority some officer's think they actually possess. You have no power but what the people give you. Attempting to have such dominion removes the power from the people and grants it to a privileged class.
    A Custodial Arrest can also be a form of punishment. Maybe, in the mind of the LEO, you are guilty of 'contempt of cop' -- you need to be taught a lesson.

    What are you going to do about it? Too many opportunities for abusive treatment.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961

    Post imported post

    VCDL opposed this nonsense last year.

    Lets hope this sort of over reach is again defeated.
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitableand let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come . PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Louisa County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    821

    Post imported post

    I led a team that met with him 2 years ago.

    He's on my list this year, too.

    Should be [another] interesting conversation.

    Any respectful advice as to what to say in opposition to this when he states that it's for the protection of the police as he has before?

  8. #8
    Regular Member Repeater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,519

    Post imported post

    Glock27Bill wrote:
    I led a team that met with him 2 years ago.

    He's on my list this year, too.

    Should be [another] interesting conversation.

    Any respectful advice as to what to say in opposition to this when he states that it's for the protection of the police as he has before?
    When Miller first tried this in 2007, he claimed it was to undo the Virginia Supreme Court opinion in Commonwealth v. Moore. So, if he was telling the truth, it was about the Exclusionary Rule.

    His bill died in Committee.

    In 2009, SCOTUS overruled the Virginia Supreme Court. so Miller can no longer use the Exclusionary Rule as his rationale.

    Miller has made it very clear he does not respect the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. You could ask him why.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    51

    Post imported post

    I fail to see the feasibility of Miller's bill. Virginia CC 19.2-74 is a practical law when it comes to offenses and police resources. Except for certain misdemeanor offenses that pose a threat to society such as DUI, Assault and Battery - Domestic Related, brandishing a firearm (actually pointing a weapon at someone without just cause), misdemeanors are not serious crimes.

    19.2-74 needs to stay in place as it is. It won't help me. It won't help you. It won't help the police.

  10. #10
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Repeater wrote:
    SNIP A Custodial Arrest can also be a form of punishment. Maybe, in the mind of the LEO, you are guilty of 'contempt of cop' -- you need to be taught a lesson.

    What are you going to do about it? Too many opportunities for abusive treatment.
    Yes, too many opportunities for abusive treatment.

    Many people fail to understand the very serious consequences of an arrest: lost time, legal fees, an arrest record,expungement efforts, incomplete expungement, permanent addition to federal data bases.

    One book I've read, How to Arrestproof Yourself, is written by a cop-turned-attorney. He gives some examples of employers not hiring people simply because that person had an arrest--too risky, why bother when there are qualified candidates without an arrest record.

    An arrest is huge in today's electronic society. The consequences can be very serious, even leaving out a conviction.

    Jackson Miller's proposal needs to be shot down again.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  11. #11
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Post imported post

    Companion bill in the Senate just showed up, patron is W. Roscoe Reynolds:

    http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp...?101+sum+SB643

    Full Text

    Discretion of law-enforcement officer to arrest or issue summons for a jailable offense. Gives a law-enforcement officer discretion to arrest or to issue a summons to a person in his custody for having committed a Class 1 or 2 misdemeanor. Currently, the officer must issue a summons unless the person refuses to cease his criminal activity, is a danger to himself or others, or indicates he will disregard a summons.

  12. #12
    Regular Member wylde007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Va Beach, Occupied VA
    Posts
    3,037

    Post imported post

    My group was one who got to speak with Miller. He is VERY pro-gun.

    However (comma) his two bills give me pause. One directly attaches criminal intent to butterfly knives because of gang-related activities in his home jurisdiction. My argument to him was, from a libertarian POV, that if they codify butterfly knives into the statute, what's to stop them from furthering it next time to include 4" collapsible folders... and then 3"?

    Nothing.

    To the OP, he explained that certain misdemeanors like "peeping toms" are presently not arrestable by statute and this gives officers the discretion to arrest. Of course, our concern is overzealous officers arresting for non-crimes and violating rights.

    He said that a corrupt cop is going to do that anyway, so it was moot.

    It doesn't prevent the person from being harassed in the first place.

    He says it changes the code section from "shall" to "may".

    After further thought the group consensus was that, while the idea held some merit, it might be better to change the status of certain crimes to reside outside the protection of class 1 and 2 and be made arrestable offenses to begin with. Rather than give the officer in the field the authority to make the decision, make the laws more clearly defined and punishable.


    The quiet war has begun, with silent weapons
    And the newest slavery is to keep the people poor, and stupid
    Novos ordo seclorum ~ Mustaine

    Never argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Henrico County ,
    Posts
    537

    Post imported post

    Ironically enough, this bill may have a better chance of passing the House this year, because of the increased Republican majority. I spoke with Joe Morrissey about the bill, and he was very much against it. Many Republicans will see this as a pro-law enforcement bill, without giving any consideration to our concerns. That's where we come in - it is our responsibility to share our conccern and reasons!

  14. #14
    Regular Member Repeater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,519

    Post imported post

    wylde007 wrote:
    To the OP, he explained that certain misdemeanors like "peeping toms" are presently not arrestable by statute and this gives officers the discretion to arrest. Of course, our concern is overzealous officers arresting for non-crimes and violating rights.

    He said that a corrupt cop is going to do that anyway, so it was moot.

    It doesn't prevent the person from being harassed in the first place.

    He says it changes the code section from "shall" to "may".

    After further thought the group consensus was that, while the idea held some merit, it might be better to change the status of certain crimes to reside outside the protection of class 1 and 2 and be made arrestable offenses to begin with. Rather than give the officer in the field the authority to make the decision, make the laws more clearly defined and punishable.

    His "Peeping Tom" example is his same, tired hypothetical that he uses every year. If there were a real problem with the current law, why doesn't he present real examples?

    As for "corrupt cops" - does he care? What solution would he offer to prevent harassment or abuse?

    "Shall issue a summons" is superior to "may arrest" because too often "may" equal "will."

  15. #15
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Repeater wrote:
    wylde007 wrote:
    To the OP, he explained that certain misdemeanors like "peeping toms" are presently not arrestable by statute and this gives officers the discretion to arrest. Of course, our concern is overzealous officers arresting for non-crimes and violating rights.

    He said that a corrupt cop is going to do that anyway, so it was moot.

    It doesn't prevent the person from being harassed in the first place.

    He says it changes the code section from "shall" to "may".

    After further thought the group consensus was that, while the idea held some merit, it might be better to change the status of certain crimes to reside outside the protection of class 1 and 2 and be made arrestable offenses to begin with. Rather than give the officer in the field the authority to make the decision, make the laws more clearly defined and punishable.

    His "Peeping Tom" example is his same, tired hypothetical that he uses every year. If there were a real problem with the current law, why doesn't he present real examples?

    As for "corrupt cops" - does he care? What solution would he offer to prevent harassment or abuse?

    "Shall issue a summons" is superior to "may arrest" because too often "may" equal "will."
    His comment about corrupt cops would do it any way is anattempted misdirection.

    A corrupt cop can only twist evidence so far. Currently, if he can twist half-evidence of a misdemeanor into full evidence, he can still only write a summons. If the bill passes, the corrupt cop can twist half-evidence into an arrest.

    And, an arrest on one's record, employment applications, and so forth is much more serious than a misdemeanor summons.

    Also, I believe in negotiating--as in hardball, when circumstances call for it. If police genuinelyneed some additional authority, they have a corresponding genuineneed somewhere else to reign in abuses of authority. If police want the authority to arrest for certain misdemeanors, I want my rights better protected either here or somewhere else. For example, (just an idea to get started), any cop who makes an extra-legal ID document demand gets downgraded one pay grade.

    Or maybe on this particular bill, the arrest can only happen if there is more than one piece of physical evidence. Or, maybe, at least two eye witnesses who are in no way connected to law enforcement. Maybe a constituent of someone on thecommittee can get his delegate to introduce such an amendment.

    It could be sorted out if proper counter-pressure was applied, or dropped by the sponsor.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  16. #16
    Regular Member wylde007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Va Beach, Occupied VA
    Posts
    3,037

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    His comment about corrupt cops would do it any way is anattempted misdirection.
    Yes, and we immediately recognized it but had no response prepared to counter it at the time.

    I have since emailed his office and offered my perspective of improvements that might give them the "tools" they need by changing the criminal classifications of certain offenses, rather than giving the officer in the field such sweeping discretion.

    We'll just have to wait and see.

    On most issues he seemed like a pretty "pro" guy, but his personal law-enforcement background and experience does color his perspective somewhat.
    The quiet war has begun, with silent weapons
    And the newest slavery is to keep the people poor, and stupid
    Novos ordo seclorum ~ Mustaine

    Never argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    418

    Post imported post

    I would think the financial impact alone would make it unlikely this bill will pass. When you start arresting people and taking them to jail - now we're talking tax dollars. Given our current state of financial affairs, I think we're much better off to write the summons and send them on their way.

  18. #18
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Post imported post

    Armed wrote:
    I would think the financial impact alone would make it unlikely this bill will pass. When you start arresting people and taking them to jail - now we're talking tax dollars. Given our current state of financial affairs, I think we're much better off to write the summons and send them on their way.
    See my post on this very subject here.

    Does anyone know how to find the financial impact statement for a bill? In the CoJ committee meeting, they spoke as if this was something worked up for every bill.

    This bill has been to CoJ, and already assigned to a sub-committee, so it would appear that it passed Chairman Albo's criteria for no or low financial impact.

    Seems that would be worth a question to the chairman.

    TFred



  19. #19
    Regular Member Repeater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,519

    Post imported post

    TFred wrote:
    Armed wrote:
    I would think the financial impact alone would make it unlikely this bill will pass. When you start arresting people and taking them to jail - now we're talking tax dollars. Given our current state of financial affairs, I think we're much better off to write the summons and send them on their way.
    See my post on this very subject here.

    Does anyone know how to find the financial impact statement for a bill? In the CoJ committee meeting, they spoke as if this was something worked up for every bill.

    This bill has been to CoJ, and already assigned to a sub-committee, so it would appear that it passed Chairman Albo's criteria for no or low financial impact.

    Seems that would be worth a question to the chairman.

    TFred

    Miller's bill from last Session, HB 2136, in fact had a fiscal impact statement.

    Curiously, his bill for this Session does not. Neither does Senator Reynolds. That seems incorrect.

    These bills would certainly affect local government expenditures. That would implicate this code section, § 30-19.03: Estimates to be prepared for legislation affecting local government expenditures and revenues.

    These bills would also swell the local jail populations, at least in some localities. That would implicate this code section, § 30-19.1:4: Increase in terms of imprisonment or commitment; fiscal impact statements; appropriations for operating costs.

    Could Speaker Howell be playing politics?

  20. #20
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Post imported post

    Repeater wrote:
    TFred wrote:
    Armed wrote:
    I would think the financial impact alone would make it unlikely this bill will pass. When you start arresting people and taking them to jail - now we're talking tax dollars. Given our current state of financial affairs, I think we're much better off to write the summons and send them on their way.
    See my post on this very subject here.

    Does anyone know how to find the financial impact statement for a bill? In the CoJ committee meeting, they spoke as if this was something worked up for every bill.

    This bill has been to CoJ, and already assigned to a sub-committee, so it would appear that it passed Chairman Albo's criteria for no or low financial impact.

    Seems that would be worth a question to the chairman.

    TFred
    Miller's bill from last Session, HB 2136, in fact had a fiscal impact statement.

    Curiously, his bill for this Session does not. Neither does Senator Reynolds. That seems incorrect.

    These bills would certainly affect local government expenditures. That would implicate this code section, § 30-19.03: Estimates to be prepared for legislation affecting local government expenditures and revenues.

    These bills would also swell the local jail populations, at least in some localities. That would implicate this code section, § 30-19.1:4: Increase in terms of imprisonment or commitment; fiscal impact statements; appropriations for operating costs.

    Could Speaker Howell be playing politics?
    The very strong impression I got from Chairman Albo during that first meeting on Monday was that he was acting on firm direction, and that decisions for exceptions would have to go through him.

    TFred

  21. #21
    Regular Member Repeater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,519

    Post imported post

    TFred wrote:
    Repeater wrote:
    TFred wrote:
    Armed wrote:
    I would think the financial impact alone would make it unlikely this bill will pass. When you start arresting people and taking them to jail - now we're talking tax dollars. Given our current state of financial affairs, I think we're much better off to write the summons and send them on their way.
    See my post on this very subject here.

    Does anyone know how to find the financial impact statement for a bill? In the CoJ committee meeting, they spoke as if this was something worked up for every bill.

    This bill has been to CoJ, and already assigned to a sub-committee, so it would appear that it passed Chairman Albo's criteria for no or low financial impact.

    Seems that would be worth a question to the chairman.

    TFred
    Miller's bill from last Session, HB 2136, in fact had a fiscal impact statement.

    Curiously, his bill for this Session does not. Neither does Senator Reynolds. That seems incorrect.

    These bills would certainly affect local government expenditures. That would implicate this code section, § 30-19.03: Estimates to be prepared for legislation affecting local government expenditures and revenues.

    These bills would also swell the local jail populations, at least in some localities. That would implicate this code section, § 30-19.1:4: Increase in terms of imprisonment or commitment; fiscal impact statements; appropriations for operating costs.

    Could Speaker Howell be playing politics?
    The very strong impression I got from Chairman Albo during that first meeting on Monday was that he was acting on firm direction, and that decisions for exceptions would have to go through him.

    TFred
    The Chairman also referred to this 2009 Budget Amendment:
    A. For any fiscal impact statement prepared by the Virginia Criminal Sentencing Commission pursuant to § 30-19.1:4, Code of Virginia, for which the commission does not have sufficient information to project the impact, the commission shall assign a minimum fiscal impact of $50,000 to the bill and this amount shall be printed on the face of each such bill, but shall not be codified. The provisions of § 30-19.1:4, paragraph H. shall be applicable to any such bill.
    What this means if that, even if they cannot decide what the specific cost would be for the Miller bill, for fiscal impact purposes, it would cost at least $50,000.

  22. #22
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    link to send emails against Jackson Miller's arrest at will bill in case anyone wants to send them: http://org2.democracyinaction.org/o/5562/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=1655

  23. #23
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961

    Post imported post

    I sent my own e-mail to the entire committee via theVCDL link. This bill, if passed,is really a severe blow to freedom and liberty in Virginia. Open Carriers will be in the sights of anti-gun LEOs and agencies all over the Commonwealth. (I kmow most LEOs are on our side, but it doesn't take many bad apples to rot the whole barrel.)

    Fight this OCDO. This gives the anti a tool that is overbearing and unnecessary. If this passes we will have significant issues. Remember, any county, city or town can pass laws that are class 1 or 2 misdemeanors. Do you really want to face the arrest wrath of Manassas or Norfolk???
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitableand let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come . PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  24. #24
    Regular Member Repeater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,519

    Post imported post

    Thundar wrote:
    I sent my own e-mail to the entire committee via theVCDL link. This bill, if passed,is really a severe blow to freedom and liberty in Virginia. Open Carriers will be in the sights of anti-gun LEOs and agencies all over the Commonwealth. (I kmow most LEOs are on our side, but it doesn't take many bad apples to rot the whole barrel.)

    Fight this OCDO. This gives the anti a tool that is overbearing and unnecessary. If this passes we will have significant issues. Remember, any county, city or town can pass laws that are class 1 or 2 misdemeanors. Do you really want to face the arrest wrath of Manassas or Norfolk???
    Thundar is right. One way to fight this is to bring some bad incidents to the attention of Republicans, who seems all too inclined to supported police-state bills like Miller's.

    An excellent source of such information is the War on Guns blog.

    This incident is all to typical:

    We're the Only Ones Social Networking Enough
    “The police officer was chatting on Facebook,” said Brown. “I think that’s wrong.”

    So Brown took out his cell phone and took a picture. That’s when he claims the officer arrested him.

    “Pulled me out of the car, grabbed my phone, and I said I don’t think I’m breaking the law here … I’m not under arrest,” said Brown.

    Brown said the officer then said “Well, you’re under arrest now.”

    Brown said the officer handcuffed him, took the phone and hauled him off to jail.

    Brown claims he was never read his rights and the officer wouldn’t give him his name. As for that picture, Brown said when officers returned his phone, the picture was gone. [More]
    Hmmm--how to prove it?

    I'd think a subpoena to Facebook would confirm activity at the time being alleged...and if it turns out to be a case of "Only One" citizen abuse as a method of CYA, he should be unfriended and introduced to another "social networking group".

  25. #25
    Accomplished Advocate user's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Northern Piedmont of Virginia
    Posts
    2,373

    Post imported post

    TFred wrote:
    Repeater wrote:
    Jackson Miller, a cop and a Delegate, is trying again to allow LEOs to arrest anyone for any Class 1 or Class 2 misdemeanor.

    More bad LEO encounters await!

    HB681

    HB 681 Discretion of law-enforcement officer to arrest or issue summons for a jailable offense.

    Patron: Jackson H. Miller

    Summary as introduced:

    Discretion of law-enforcement officer to arrest or issue summons for a jailable offense. Gives a law-enforcement officer discretion to arrest or to issue a summons to a person in his custody for having committed a Class 1 or 2 misdemeanor.

    Currently, the officer must issue a summons unless the person refuses to cease his criminal activity, is a danger to himself or others, or indicates he will disregard a summons.
    This one is difficult to follow. The full text simply toggles one instance of the two words "may" and "shall".

    TFred

    I don't know... I wonder whether that delegate understands the legal effect of the changes he's proposed. By saying, "arresting officer may[/i] take the name and address of such person and issue a summons or otherwise notify him in writing to appear at a time and place to be specified in such summons or notice.", it gives the cop more discretion to simply let someone go without issuance of a summons - it does not give the cop discretion to make a full custodial arrest. And where he says, "However, if any such person shall fail or refuse to discontinue the unlawful act, the officer shall[/i] proceed according to the provisions of § 19.2-82. ", well, that would require that every person subjected to custodial arrest be taken to a magistrate immediately - which is not now the case. It would not change the conditions under which a cop can place a person in custody.

    I have to say, I'm in favor of it, unless I'm missing something.

    Daniel L. Hawes - 540 347 2430 - HTTP://www.VirginiaLegalDefense.com

    By the way, nothing I say on this website as "user" should be taken as either advertising for attorney services or legal advice, merely personal opinion. Everyone having a question regarding the application of law to the facts of their situation should seek the advice of an attorney competent in the subject matter of the issues presented and licensed to practice in the relevant state.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •